Marshall ( MXL ) Large Condensers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mountaineer
  • Start date Start date
M

Mountaineer

New member
I recently purchased a MXL 2003 large condenser microphone and have experimented with it on a number of applications and projects. Literature and reviews I read on the mic compared it to the Neumann U87 and, in general, to mics costing 10 times more than its street price of $279. I haven't seen much discussion on here about these mics, other than hearsay, which is why I'm starting this topic.

No, I don't work for Marshall. I don't work for Line6 either . . . but, if you are a home recording guitarist without a POD and you are frustrated with electric guitar recordings, I think your missing out.

The same was true with my vocal and acoustic guitar recordings. I was frustrated, or maybe just unsatisfied, with dynamic mics, small condensers, and two large condensers I tried ( one an AKG and the other a CAD 100 ). I had decided to give up and save for a $700 Neumann ( used ) when I bought the MXL. I figured, if it didn't live up to the review, I'd just Ebay it for what I paid . . . like the others.

In short, I've decided to ditch the Neumann idea and keep the MXL for now. I'm not saying the MXL is as good as a Neumann . . . hell no ! All I'm saying is it's the first large condenser that I've liked ! My vocals are now clear and crisp and my acoustic guitar tracks have come alive ! I also think that, unless I put more money into preamps or a high quality mixer, the Neumann probably wouldn't sound much better on my setup . . . who knows ?

I would like to see someone on this site ( Recording Engineer ? Sonusman ? ) , who has had more experience with the many brands, perform an honest comparison and report the results. Why ? Because I can't afford to try them all and I'd like to know if I'm still missing out !

Regards,
PAPicker
 
I haven't heard much about 'em or heard the actual mic myself. But what I have heard, people say they're "decent".

Mike Rivers said:


"I talked with a friend at the AES show who works for a major broadcast company. He got half a dozen of the "fancy" ones (with all the switches) and has been rather pleased with them. They won't replace his good mic
collection by any means, but are good supplements. He has two in voiceover booths and has used them to track string sections and was pleased with the results. Understand that this isn't agonizing tweak work, just
overall good sound done in a good studio by an engineer with 30 years of experience. Your expierience will undoubtably be different.

He made an interesting observation - he considers them disposable mics. If they're using audience mics on a remote, he hates it when someone unpluggs a U87 and slips it in his backpack, but wouldn't mind losing one of these once in a while.


------------
I'm really (Mike Rivers) mrivers@d-and-d.com"


I doubt the lower end MXLs sound anymore like a U87 than any other mic said to sound like a U87; or any other mic for that matter. And they shouldn't. There's a reason why people STILL pay $XXXX for a U87.

I'm not saying it's not going to sound good (one, people won't want to add to their collection or even to start out with as your first large diaphragm mic), but I think it's crap to try and compare it to a U87. If people want a mic to compare new mics to so that MOST people can relate, compare the new mics to SM57s; at least let it be one of the contenders. Especially in this price range.

You know, the Rode NT-2 is suppose to be the clone of a U87 cap. But they can't get the precision right to get a figure-8 pattern with that caps; by the way, this is what Rode said.

Also. Since this the 797 Audio controversey came all over the rec.audio.pro newgroup, 797 Audio claims the Marshall MXL 2001 and the ADK A-51 are both completely manufactured and assembled by 797 Audio (in China) for Marshall and ADK. Not only that, but they are completely the extact same mic (internally); just with different housings. Two representives (one from Marshall and one from ADK), confermed this on the r.a.p. newsgroup.

Now, I addmit I have not heard the ADK A-51, but I have the Marshall MXL 2001. It's not a bad mic in my opinion. I consider it a "decent" mic. Although, the only thing I really enjoyed it on more (as compared to other low budget large diaphragm mics) is on electric guitar cabs.

Anotherwords, I'd save a little longer; say another $100US.

Well, you asked. Although, sonusman has the rap for long, very detailed, yet easy to understand responses.
 
Just so you know, I know you were talking about the MXL 2003, but I haven't heard it, so I responded to what I have heard.

This goes both ways, but don't let the price fool you.
 
Hey, RE
Thanks for the response, but, regarding my question about my existing equipment . . .
I don't plan to spring for a more expensive mixer . . I have a Mackie 1202VLZPro . . . in your opinion, do you really think a more expensive mic would sound that much better with a budget priced mixer ? Thanks !

PAPicker
 
Well... Now let me think about that... Hell yes!

OK I admit I'm not going to hearing the "full potential" of my 103 through a Mackie pre, but I'm sure any common person would be able hear a huge difference between my 103 and your MXL 2003. And I didn't give that example to boast. It's just you were talking about Neumanns. The price difference doesn't even have to be so large. And a lot of the time, it's not.

Also:
I think you weren't satified with the two other mics you tried because... Well, to speak "ditto", they're an AKG (C3000; I'm assuming) and CAD E100? Man, take your Marshall MXL 2003 (I really don't know how it sounds; it might beat the hell out of these other suggestions, but still compare. Especially since you have it to compare to).
Do some comparisions with a Rode NT-1, NT-2, AT4033, and even mics out of the price range; the ones you've heard rants and raves about by those who's recordings you admire. That way, you know what you're getting for the money. Do you really think it compares to a U87 when those other more expensive mics don't even seem to?

And listen to them all on a Mackie PRO pre.
 
This thread is mighty old but I put the MXL 2003 and U87Ai head to head 6 years later

I had the chance after purchasing two sets of each the MXL 2003 and the U87 Ai to put them head to head on the same gear. See if you can guess which is which?

1. File 1 - http://www.croncast.com/mic/mic_test_20070525_1.aif
2. File 2 - http://www.croncast.com/mic/mic_test_20070525_2.aif
3. File 3 - The mic that I kept running through a UA 6176 - http://www.croncast.com/mic/mic_test_20070525_3.aif

Cheers,

Kris
 
mics

I can barely hear a difference at all in any of that. Im not going to say i know which mics are better than others, but if i cant tell a very obvious difference than neither can the average music listener listening over an ipod.

I think most people hear what they want to hear in equipment.
 
They both sound somewhat metallic . . . file 1 is 1.3dBRMS hotter than file 2, even though peak was the same, once the RMS levels are matched file 2 sounds a bit better due to fuller low end, but since these are different performances, that could be a difference due to proximity effect. So I will say subjectively #2 sounded better, but I would not make a selection on the basis that the test was not controlled.
 
1 theres more low/mid's

2 either cleaner or first is muddier

3 is very dry and rough and less of the hi mids

:confused: :o

I think the first one is the most expensive, it sounds smoother and more colorfull ,the second one is drier i would say it comes second ,and the third one i plain, no likey!
 
I liked #2 best on the voice (listening through laptop speakers). I also have a hunch it's the MXL because of the more open high frequency response.

That said, I've never heard a U87 and can't even find a response curve for one that hasn't been modded, so I could be way off.
 
dgatwood said:
That said, I've never heard a U87 and can't even find a response curve for one that hasn't been modded, so I could be way off.
Click to expand...

if you own more than 5 cds then you've heard lots of U87s on lead vocals, bg vocals, and probably many instruments.

now I know that isn't really what you meant, but I just think that you may be better able to identify the U87 sound than you think.

Also worth noting is that the U87 is different from the U87AI. the AI is much newer, uses a completely different circuit, is transformerless (I believe), but may share the same capsule as the old version (not 100% sure of that but fairly confident that the cap is the same). also body is more or less the same.

Don
 
dkelley said:
now I know that isn't really what you meant, but I just think that you may be better able to identify the U87 sound than you think.
Click to expand...

Hearing it in a mix of music (potentially with EQ added, etc.) and hearing it used for spoken voice on a raw track are two very different things. :)
 
DKelley,

You're right about the reconfiguration of the circuit about the U87Ai, but the Ai does have a tranformer.

Craig
 
totally kewl about the mix versus non mix version of hearing a mic, I sort of meant to suggest that in my post, but I still feel that upon hearing a U87 on a good appropriate voice he would probably say "oh yes, THAT'S the sound on such and such record" or something like that. Could be totally wrong though, sorry if I am!

Anyway, sorry about the U87AI transformer misinformation, I was basing that info on neumann themselves stating back 7 to 10 years ago that they no longer make any mics with transformers in them. I would say that this statement from neumann is now untrue, so my bad! I know that the high end of the AI version is slightly clearer and slightly more "modern" sounding and the overall tone is slightly less compressed sounding than the older U87 mics I've used, so that's why (along with the quote from neumann, above) that I assumed the U87AI would fit into the same TLM circuitry as the rest of their modern lineup. Not that I'm complaining about the tlm mics (or the U87ai), I'm a huge fan of modern neumann gear, unlike some gear snobs. I feel that they're different from the old stuff but generally really really good. A couple of items aren't maybe "the sound" we're used to looking for (like on acoustic guitar or vocals) but I feel that many of their newer mics are far better on piano, strings, and modern mixed vocals that some of the older ones. Just my two cents worth, IMHO, all that jazz... ;-)

Cheers all!

Don
 
Thanks for the feedback guys!

After a couple of days it's time for the reveal . . .

1. Neumann U87 Ai - http://www.croncast.com/mic/mic_test_20070525_1.aif
2. Marshall MXL 2003 - http://www.croncast.com/mic/mic_test_20070525_2.aif
3. Marshall MXL 2003 + U87 Ai + Waves L2 - http://www.croncast.com/mic/mic_test_20070525_3.aif

With #3 getting marks for being "dry" what channel strip would anyone recommend for pre-processing compression/limiting and ooomph? My goal would be to be able to crank down the L2 and do as little post manipulation as possible.

The reason that I kept the MXL was that there just wasn't that big difference in the sound for a spoken word podcast that is most often listened to on an iPod or computer. Another reason for giving up the Neumann was that I didn't have the rest of the loot needed to complete the chain that probably would have made a dramatic difference.

// Kris
 
FYI - Neumann line of transformerless mics are the TLM series. Not to change the subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top